Greenwashing Penalties by EU Member State: What to Expect in 2026-2027

The ECGT directive sets the floor — minimum penalties of 4% of annual turnover — but each of the 27 EU member states implements its own enforcement framework. That means penalty structures, enforcement agencies, investigation procedures, and appeal mechanisms differ significantly depending on where the violation occurs.

For businesses operating across multiple EU markets, this creates a fragmented compliance landscape. A claim that attracts a warning in one country might trigger an immediate fine in another. Understanding these differences is essential for prioritising compliance efforts.

The ECGT Penalty Framework

Directive 2024/825 requires that member states establish penalties that are "effective, proportionate, and dissuasive." The directive specifies minimum requirements:

• Maximum fines must reach at least 4% of annual turnover in the member state where the infringement occurred
• Where turnover data is unavailable, maximum fines must be at least €2 million
• Penalties must account for the nature, gravity, and duration of the infringement
• Penalties should consider previous infringements by the same trader
• Revenue or profits gained from the infringement should be recoverable

Beyond financial penalties, the directive enables:

• Mandatory corrective communications at the trader's expense
• Temporary exclusion from public procurement processes
• Cease-and-desist orders requiring immediate removal of non-compliant claims

Country-by-Country Enforcement Landscape

France — Most Advanced, Strictest Enforcement

France was enforcing greenwashing prohibitions before the ECGT existed. The Climate and Resilience Law (Loi Climat et Résilience, 2021) banned "carbon neutral" product claims from January 2023. The DGCCRF (Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes) is the primary enforcement body.

Key facts:

• Enforcement agency: DGCCRF
• Pre-existing greenwashing legislation: Yes (Climate and Resilience Law, Consumer Code Article L121-2)
• Fine structure: Up to 80% of advertising spend for misleading green claims, or 4% of turnover under ECGT transposition
• Criminal liability: Possible for systematic fraud (up to 2 years imprisonment)
• Active enforcement: Yes — DGCCRF conducted 1,100+ inspections on environmental claims in 2023
• Expected approach post-2026: Aggressive, building on existing case law

France is the country where enforcement will hit first and hardest. If your business operates in France, compliance isn't optional — it's overdue.

Germany — Structured, Thorough, Slow But Heavy

Germany's approach to greenwashing enforcement follows its general regulatory pattern: methodical investigation, significant penalties when imposed, but slower initiation. The Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) and state-level consumer protection authorities share jurisdiction.

Key facts:

• Enforcement agencies: State consumer protection authorities, Bundeskartellamt, VSW (competition watchdog)
• Pre-existing framework: UWG (Unfair Competition Act) already covered misleading environmental claims
• Fine structure: ECGT transposition implementing 4% turnover minimum; UWG fines historically up to €300,000 per violation
• Competitor standing: German law allows competitors to sue directly for unfair commercial practices — a powerful enforcement multiplier
• Expected approach: Competitor-driven litigation will likely precede regulatory enforcement

Netherlands — Proactive Regulator, Test Cases Expected

The Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) has been one of the EU's most active greenwashing enforcers. The ACM's 2023 guidelines on sustainability claims set expectations before the ECGT was even adopted.

Key facts:

• Enforcement agency: ACM
• Pre-existing framework: ACM Guidelines on Sustainability Claims (2023), Dutch Consumer Authority Act
• Fine structure: Up to €900,000 or 1% of turnover under existing law; ECGT raises maximum to 4%
• Active enforcement: Yes — ACM investigated 170+ companies in 2023 pilot, sent warnings to clothing companies, energy companies
• Expected approach: Early enforcement through "sweeps" of high-risk sectors

Italy — AGCM Has Teeth

Italy's competition authority AGCM (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) has imposed significant greenwashing fines even before ECGT. ENI was fined €5 million in 2020 for misleading "green diesel" claims.

Key facts:

• Enforcement agency: AGCM
• Fine structure: Up to €10 million under existing unfair commercial practices law; ECGT raises to 4% of turnover
• Notable case: ENI fined €5M (2020) for "ENIdiesel+" green claims; Alcantara investigated for sustainability claims (2023)
• Expected approach: Sector-specific investigations, particularly fashion and food

Spain — Consumer Protection Driven

Key facts:

• Enforcement agency: CNMC (National Commission on Markets and Competition), regional consumer authorities
• Fine structure: ECGT transposition pending; existing unfair competition fines up to €600,000
• Expected approach: Consumer complaint-driven, with regional variation in enforcement intensity

Nordic Countries — High Standards, Cooperative Approach

Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway (EEA member) share a tradition of strong consumer protection and environmental consciousness. Nordic consumers are among the most sceptical of green claims, making these markets high-risk for greenwashing enforcement.

Key facts:

• Denmark: Consumer Ombudsman actively monitors green claims; published detailed guidance in 2021
• Sweden: Consumer Agency (Konsumentverket) focuses on systematic monitoring rather than individual complaints
• Finland: Consumer Authority (KKV) participates in EU-wide enforcement "sweeps"
• Norway: Consumer Authority (Forbrukertilsynet) — the authority that first challenged H&M's Conscious Collection

Other Notable Markets

Belgium: SPF Economie handles enforcement. Belgian courts have been receptive to NGO-initiated greenwashing complaints.

Austria: Federal Competition Authority (BWB) and commercial courts. Austrian law allows consumer associations to bring class actions.

Poland: UOKiK (Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) has increased attention to environmental claims, with investigations into energy and food sectors.

Ireland: Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) is expanding environmental claims monitoring.

Cross-Border Enforcement Complexity

For companies operating across multiple EU markets, the enforcement landscape creates a "weakest link" problem. A claim published on a website accessible from all 27 member states can theoretically be challenged by any national authority.

In practice, enforcement jurisdiction typically falls to:

1. The member state where the company is established
2. The member state where the consumer is targeted (determined by language, currency, delivery options)
3. For cross-border cases: the EU's Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) network coordinates enforcement across borders

The CPC network conducted its first EU-wide greenwashing "sweep" in 2023, screening 344 websites across sectors. 42% were flagged for potential violations. This sweep model will likely intensify post-2026.

Mitigating Factors

Most member states consider mitigating factors when determining penalties:

• Voluntary compliance: Removing non-compliant claims before investigation reduces penalties
• Cooperation: Engaging constructively with regulators during investigation
• First offence: No prior violations typically results in lower penalties
• Good faith: Evidence of genuine compliance efforts, even if incomplete
• Corrective action: Proactive remediation demonstrates good faith

The best mitigation strategy is compliance before enforcement begins. Scan your website now with our Green Claims Scanner to identify potential issues across all markets.

Related: ECGT Compliance Guide | Biggest Greenwashing Cases